M
McX
Guest
title explains it all, tune in, it's a good 'un!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
I heard about 5 minutes of it, and Whineguard is completely wrong with the requirement of training. People are going to get it. I like how Vicki pointed out that out of 2 million permit holders, less than 20 have had their permits pulled.
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Lol, "history buff" guy calling in saying a .44 magnum is a recent development. I think it was introduced in 1955, which makes ME a "recent development" also!
M
McX
Guest
it's for the children!
apierce918
Regular Member
where are these 16 ammendments listed that she is talking about?
M
McX
Guest
show said it was on her website.
apierce918
Regular Member
I heard her say on her facebook page, but i'm at work and facebook is blocked 
GlockRDH
Regular Member
im friggin sick of people talking about 'training'....one doesnt have to have 'hunters safety' (if you were born before a certain date) to pick up a quite high powered rifle and head off into a crowded woods WITH THE INTENT of pulling the trigger...
Grant Guess
Regular Member
National Rifle Association of America
Personal Protection Act (PPA) – SB 93
Position on Potential Hostile Amendments
Many hostile amendments will be offered to the PPA on the Floor. In light of the fact
that the dozens of other states have experienced no problems with any of the various
provisions that have been incorporated into the bill, these amendments are meant to do
one thing – discourage as many citizens as possible from acquiring licenses and carrying concealed weapons for their protection. Many concessions have been made by the NRA to this point in the legislative process. Any additional hostile amendments will be strongly opposed and all votes will be considered for candidate grading purposes. Listed below are many of these expected amendments. Brief reasons as to why they should be soundly rejected are included.
Imposition of a one-size-fits-all training mandate
The training mandate in the bill is modeled after Florida’s. It has been adopted by a
number of other states because Florida has had its system in effect for 26 years and it has issued 2 million licenses. The program has been an undeniable success. Because it
allows citizens to choose from a number of firearms safety programs, availability and
cost concerns are controlled. An amendment creating micro-managed curriculum that
attempts to treat citizens like special operations soldiers will disenfranchise tens of
thousands of good Wisconsinites due to cost and access issues. This kind of overbearing
government dictate especially discriminates against lower income residents who often
live in high crime urban areas – people who arguably most need protection. The
amendment should be opposed by PPA supporters and opponents alike. (contact sen. wanggaard: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=senate&district=21)
Statutory prohibition on the carry of handguns in certain private properties
The current bill allows all private properties (churches, daycare centers, hospitals etc.) to post against carry. Creating statutory prohibitions is a violation of private property
rights, as owners are not allowed to make decisions based upon their own circumstances. Legislators who support private property rights should oppose these efforts.
Prohibitions in domestic violence shelters
As should be the case with other private properties, shelter operators should be left to
make the decision to prohibit by posting. If a retired female police officer, for instance, is a resident of a shelter and is the subject of threats of violence, the owner should not be preempted statutorily from allowing her to carry. In what other instances do interest
groups lobby against their own right to choose how they manage their properties? An
abuser intent on doing harm is not going to be deterred by a statutory prohibition any
more than a posting pursuant to trespass.
Specific statutory prohibition in the State Capitol
If supporters adopt an amendment to statutorily prohibit carry in the State Capitol, they will appropriately be charged with hypocrisy. There is no reason to treat the Capitol differently than other government buildings. Managers may choose to post buildings. It should be noted that many stats allow licensees to carry into their capitol buildings and there have been no problems with regard to licensees.
Prohibition of carry authorized on external grounds of government buildings
There should be limitations on where government entities are able to restrict firearms
possession by citizens and within the confines of buildings should be established as the
outer limit of that authority. A citizen walking across town in Madison, for instance,
should not be prohibited from taking the same short route across the Capitol grounds that all others take simply because he or she is legally carrying a handgun for self-defense.
“Special events” on government grounds may prohibit carry if they meet the
requirements specified in the bill.
Expansion of college and university authority to prohibit on campus grounds
Many campuses, like that of UW-Madison, are sprawling and fragmented in urban
jurisdictions. Citizens are hard-pressed to know when they are or are not on campus. A
prohibition would be unworkable and would lead to many unintentional violations of the
law. Of course, this is the intent of many PPA opponents who support this amendment.
If colleges and universities choose to post their buildings, licensees will be put on notice.
Zero tolerance on the consumption of alcohol while carrying
Citizens passively carrying holstered firearms for self-defense should not be held to a
higher standard than those who operate two thousand pound vehicles in the complex
environment associated with crowded public roadways. Those who advocate for zero
tolerance are attempting to set licensees up for failure. Taking common cough
medicines, for example, would lead licensees to violate a zero tolerance provision.
Current law prohibits gun owners from handling firearms while impaired and the PPA
reflects this.
Prohibition against licensees storing handguns in locked vehicles in parking lots
The PPA balances the interests of private property owners who choose to prohibit carry
with those of licensees who choose to store firearms in their own private vehicles.
Parking lot prohibitions, especially for employees, effectively disarm citizens from the
time they leave home each day to the time that they return.
Allow unlimited law enforcement access to license holder list
There is no benefit associated with law enforcement officers knowing the license status
of the registered owner of a vehicle. It tells them nothing about the actual occupants and could lead to officers overreacting to an innocent situation or, conversely, letting their guard down inappropriately. Some law enforcement leaders in Wisconsin have
previously stated that they will use the list as a starting point to begin investigations of
shootings in neighborhoods or treat stops of licensees as felony stops – controlled at
gunpoint – and both are completely inappropriate.
Provide public access to the list of licensees
In states like Virginia and Tennessee where the licensee list was not initially protected
from public disclosure, newspapers have published the entire list. This has given
burglars a list of gun owners whom they can victimize while their homes are unoccupied
and provided stalkers and other criminals with information regarding their victims. A
public list also creates a chilling effect on nurses, school teachers and others who may
incur social and professional consequences if it is known they are licensees. Neighbors
and co-workers do not know who owns guns. They should not know license status.
Felony penalties for illegal possession of a concealed weapon
The PPA is about making it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
The debate over penalties for illegal carry is a matter for another day. Many contend that felony penalties for an act that is arguably a citizen’s constitutional right is entirely
inappropriate. Where the future debate should begin is with convicted violent felons
who illegally possess firearms. These are perpetrators of the majority of the violence in
our communities. Otherwise law-abiding stalking victims who are refused emergency
licenses and act out of desperation are another matter.
Bans in common areas of multi-family properties
Owners and managers of multi-family properties should not be able to prohibit carry in
common areas because such prohibitions effectively prevent residents from legally
carrying concealed weapons for their protection. Citizens who live in these places must
pass through common areas in order to get to their residences. Families who live in these properties tend to be lower income and no segments of the community should be
disenfranchised. The bill allows nonresidents to be barred from carrying in these areas.
Penalty increase for carrying in posted properties
The current penalties associated with disregarding property owner wishes are those for
trespass (class B forfeiture with fine up to $1,000). There is no reason to treat this realm differently. The existing penalties are significant enough to discourage honest citizens from intentionally disregarding the wishes of property owners while not so harsh as to have life-changing consequences for those who make innocent mistakes while going about their busy lives (not seeing the white 5” x 7” posted sign). The PPA finds a good balance. If penalties are to be increased, they should be increased for all trespass violations.
Denial of recognition of other state licenses
The right to self-defense is not limited to within a person’s state of residence. Most “shall issue” states recognize licenses issued by other states. Ten states, like with driver
licenses, allow for “full recognition” of all other states’ carry licenses. These states have
not experienced any problems caused by out-of-state licensees. The fact that license
holders from other states possess a valid license shows that they have been responsible
and trustworthy in their home state. Nothing suggests that the licensee’s law-abiding
conduct will change upon entering Wisconsin
Prohibition of DUI offenders and other misdemeanants from obtaining licenses
Citizens who may legally own firearms should be able to apply for a license to carry for
self-defense. If certain misdemeanor offenses are deemed so significant as to indicate the offender is a danger to the public while in possession of a firearm, they should be made felonies.
Prohibition on carry in establishments that serve alcohol
There are 42 states that allow concealed firearms to be carried in these establishments.
There have been no problems as is evidenced by the fact that no state has attempted to repeal this provision of law. The PPA is more restrictive than the laws in many states
because it prohibits alcohol consumption by licensees while carrying on the premises.
These places are not immune from violence and citizens should be able to protect
themselves while dining with their families. A statutory prohibition violates the private
property rights of establishment owners who should be able to decide for themselves as to whether law abiding citizens carry; criminals already do.
Personal Protection Act (PPA) – SB 93
Position on Potential Hostile Amendments
Many hostile amendments will be offered to the PPA on the Floor. In light of the fact
that the dozens of other states have experienced no problems with any of the various
provisions that have been incorporated into the bill, these amendments are meant to do
one thing – discourage as many citizens as possible from acquiring licenses and carrying concealed weapons for their protection. Many concessions have been made by the NRA to this point in the legislative process. Any additional hostile amendments will be strongly opposed and all votes will be considered for candidate grading purposes. Listed below are many of these expected amendments. Brief reasons as to why they should be soundly rejected are included.
Imposition of a one-size-fits-all training mandate
The training mandate in the bill is modeled after Florida’s. It has been adopted by a
number of other states because Florida has had its system in effect for 26 years and it has issued 2 million licenses. The program has been an undeniable success. Because it
allows citizens to choose from a number of firearms safety programs, availability and
cost concerns are controlled. An amendment creating micro-managed curriculum that
attempts to treat citizens like special operations soldiers will disenfranchise tens of
thousands of good Wisconsinites due to cost and access issues. This kind of overbearing
government dictate especially discriminates against lower income residents who often
live in high crime urban areas – people who arguably most need protection. The
amendment should be opposed by PPA supporters and opponents alike. (contact sen. wanggaard: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/contact/legislatorpages.aspx?house=senate&district=21)
Statutory prohibition on the carry of handguns in certain private properties
The current bill allows all private properties (churches, daycare centers, hospitals etc.) to post against carry. Creating statutory prohibitions is a violation of private property
rights, as owners are not allowed to make decisions based upon their own circumstances. Legislators who support private property rights should oppose these efforts.
Prohibitions in domestic violence shelters
As should be the case with other private properties, shelter operators should be left to
make the decision to prohibit by posting. If a retired female police officer, for instance, is a resident of a shelter and is the subject of threats of violence, the owner should not be preempted statutorily from allowing her to carry. In what other instances do interest
groups lobby against their own right to choose how they manage their properties? An
abuser intent on doing harm is not going to be deterred by a statutory prohibition any
more than a posting pursuant to trespass.
Specific statutory prohibition in the State Capitol
If supporters adopt an amendment to statutorily prohibit carry in the State Capitol, they will appropriately be charged with hypocrisy. There is no reason to treat the Capitol differently than other government buildings. Managers may choose to post buildings. It should be noted that many stats allow licensees to carry into their capitol buildings and there have been no problems with regard to licensees.
Prohibition of carry authorized on external grounds of government buildings
There should be limitations on where government entities are able to restrict firearms
possession by citizens and within the confines of buildings should be established as the
outer limit of that authority. A citizen walking across town in Madison, for instance,
should not be prohibited from taking the same short route across the Capitol grounds that all others take simply because he or she is legally carrying a handgun for self-defense.
“Special events” on government grounds may prohibit carry if they meet the
requirements specified in the bill.
Expansion of college and university authority to prohibit on campus grounds
Many campuses, like that of UW-Madison, are sprawling and fragmented in urban
jurisdictions. Citizens are hard-pressed to know when they are or are not on campus. A
prohibition would be unworkable and would lead to many unintentional violations of the
law. Of course, this is the intent of many PPA opponents who support this amendment.
If colleges and universities choose to post their buildings, licensees will be put on notice.
Zero tolerance on the consumption of alcohol while carrying
Citizens passively carrying holstered firearms for self-defense should not be held to a
higher standard than those who operate two thousand pound vehicles in the complex
environment associated with crowded public roadways. Those who advocate for zero
tolerance are attempting to set licensees up for failure. Taking common cough
medicines, for example, would lead licensees to violate a zero tolerance provision.
Current law prohibits gun owners from handling firearms while impaired and the PPA
reflects this.
Prohibition against licensees storing handguns in locked vehicles in parking lots
The PPA balances the interests of private property owners who choose to prohibit carry
with those of licensees who choose to store firearms in their own private vehicles.
Parking lot prohibitions, especially for employees, effectively disarm citizens from the
time they leave home each day to the time that they return.
Allow unlimited law enforcement access to license holder list
There is no benefit associated with law enforcement officers knowing the license status
of the registered owner of a vehicle. It tells them nothing about the actual occupants and could lead to officers overreacting to an innocent situation or, conversely, letting their guard down inappropriately. Some law enforcement leaders in Wisconsin have
previously stated that they will use the list as a starting point to begin investigations of
shootings in neighborhoods or treat stops of licensees as felony stops – controlled at
gunpoint – and both are completely inappropriate.
Provide public access to the list of licensees
In states like Virginia and Tennessee where the licensee list was not initially protected
from public disclosure, newspapers have published the entire list. This has given
burglars a list of gun owners whom they can victimize while their homes are unoccupied
and provided stalkers and other criminals with information regarding their victims. A
public list also creates a chilling effect on nurses, school teachers and others who may
incur social and professional consequences if it is known they are licensees. Neighbors
and co-workers do not know who owns guns. They should not know license status.
Felony penalties for illegal possession of a concealed weapon
The PPA is about making it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
The debate over penalties for illegal carry is a matter for another day. Many contend that felony penalties for an act that is arguably a citizen’s constitutional right is entirely
inappropriate. Where the future debate should begin is with convicted violent felons
who illegally possess firearms. These are perpetrators of the majority of the violence in
our communities. Otherwise law-abiding stalking victims who are refused emergency
licenses and act out of desperation are another matter.
Bans in common areas of multi-family properties
Owners and managers of multi-family properties should not be able to prohibit carry in
common areas because such prohibitions effectively prevent residents from legally
carrying concealed weapons for their protection. Citizens who live in these places must
pass through common areas in order to get to their residences. Families who live in these properties tend to be lower income and no segments of the community should be
disenfranchised. The bill allows nonresidents to be barred from carrying in these areas.
Penalty increase for carrying in posted properties
The current penalties associated with disregarding property owner wishes are those for
trespass (class B forfeiture with fine up to $1,000). There is no reason to treat this realm differently. The existing penalties are significant enough to discourage honest citizens from intentionally disregarding the wishes of property owners while not so harsh as to have life-changing consequences for those who make innocent mistakes while going about their busy lives (not seeing the white 5” x 7” posted sign). The PPA finds a good balance. If penalties are to be increased, they should be increased for all trespass violations.
Denial of recognition of other state licenses
The right to self-defense is not limited to within a person’s state of residence. Most “shall issue” states recognize licenses issued by other states. Ten states, like with driver
licenses, allow for “full recognition” of all other states’ carry licenses. These states have
not experienced any problems caused by out-of-state licensees. The fact that license
holders from other states possess a valid license shows that they have been responsible
and trustworthy in their home state. Nothing suggests that the licensee’s law-abiding
conduct will change upon entering Wisconsin
Prohibition of DUI offenders and other misdemeanants from obtaining licenses
Citizens who may legally own firearms should be able to apply for a license to carry for
self-defense. If certain misdemeanor offenses are deemed so significant as to indicate the offender is a danger to the public while in possession of a firearm, they should be made felonies.
Prohibition on carry in establishments that serve alcohol
There are 42 states that allow concealed firearms to be carried in these establishments.
There have been no problems as is evidenced by the fact that no state has attempted to repeal this provision of law. The PPA is more restrictive than the laws in many states
because it prohibits alcohol consumption by licensees while carrying on the premises.
These places are not immune from violence and citizens should be able to protect
themselves while dining with their families. A statutory prohibition violates the private
property rights of establishment owners who should be able to decide for themselves as to whether law abiding citizens carry; criminals already do.
apierce918
Regular Member
thanks, I was trying on my phone, but failed.
Grant Guess
Regular Member
I was mistaken...
You cannot carry concealed at your local trap, skeet or archery club if they serve alcohol (and most in fact do).
You cannot carry concealed at your local trap, skeet or archery club if they serve alcohol (and most in fact do).
M
McX
Guest
the crimes against paper targets, and clay pidgeons at clubs, murdered by drunken sport shooters............oh, the humanity! (insert zepplin crashing and burning here).
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
What do you mean? Right now? You can't carry concealed anywhere (other than the exception for home and business.) Under the bill? The current language of the bill allows carry in places that serve alcohol.
You CAN, currently, carry a handgun (openly) in any tavern with permission.
Additionally the general hand gun prohibition does not apply at a "public or private gun or sportsmen's range or club."
M
McX
Guest
there is a more serious problem that has been brought up, but not addressed. i now have evidence the zepplin was brought down by a stray shot from a gun range. i beleive the wording of the new bill should include language that no carrier, permit or otherwise can go within 1000 feet of a zepplin.
SB93, amendment 559: No Led near the Zepplin.
SB93, amendment 559: No Led near the Zepplin.
Last edited:
Shotgun
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
M
McX
Guest
obvious; break off from the zep, and tour on his own, mindful of the no Led near the Zep amendment!
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Who the h*ll cares about Jimmy Page? The REAL question is WHAT WOULD TORT ELVIS DO*!
[video=youtube;7Dwh5_hicoE&feature]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dwh5_hicoE&feature[/video]
*I actually know the answer. He would do The Claw. Clambake style.
[video=youtube;7Dwh5_hicoE&feature]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dwh5_hicoE&feature[/video]
*I actually know the answer. He would do The Claw. Clambake style.
M
McX
Guest
our shop has adopted a strong no Zepplins policy, it will be posted by the end of the week.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Those listed amendments are terrible, & we need to keep on our legislators so they don't act (continue acting) stupid & vote for any of them.
Is there available a current copy of the bill w/ amendments inserted, or are we still working on "this is the text of SB93" and "this is the LRB memo about an amendment"?
Whoa!!! I thought the sign had to be a full sheet of paper, except for colleges, which can be half-size, but still has to be blaze orange?
Is there available a current copy of the bill w/ amendments inserted, or are we still working on "this is the text of SB93" and "this is the LRB memo about an amendment"?
M
McX
Guest
i'm on top of this matter; i have just gotten off the phone with my rep. he agrees the zepplin language is too broad, and is introducing the inna-goda-davita amendment; that will allow permit holders to come within the 1000 ft. zone, as long as the zepplin doesnt contain passengers, nor is serving alcohol. i beleive this to be a reasonable compromise.